Rooster7

"Being humiliated is not something that grows character, it feeds anger and distrust. I thought that sticking up for the oppressed and picked on was a good thing, apparently there are scouters who think it's a growing experience." Because a boy feels something, doesn't mean it's reasonable or justifiable. His feelings may be real (or not), but that doesn't mean another boy did him a wrong. If a Scout crosses the line (while joking around), then yes, the Scoutmaster should reprimand that individual and take measures to console and reassure the "victim". However, when common sense dictates that there was no harm done or intended, then I'm suggesting that the "victim" needs to be consulted in a different way. He needs to "grow up"perhaps he even needs professional counseling. Just because someone claims to be a victim doesn't make it so. Isn't it better to prepare a boy for real life, then to try to create a world, which is void of any potential perception of unkindness and removes opportunities of expression and enjoyment for others? "So, what if your kid has a problem with a bully? Is the answer to tell the kid to punch his lights out? Maybe the bully backs down; maybe the kid gets the stuffing kicked out of him, what was accomplished? That the kid knows he is weak and defenseless, not a good thing no matter how it works out." First, I think it is unfair and prejudicial to compare a practical joker to a bully. But to answer your questionsNo, I don't think it is necessarily reasonable to tell a boy to handle a bully on his own. However, no one (in particular myself) has suggested that bullying be accepted as normal behavior. "What do you do when the jokee reacts with violence, tell him it was only a joke and nobody meant anything by it? Then why do it if it meant nothing." Again, you're presuming the joker is some kind of bully. You've taken the stance that by definition; a practical joker is always wrong and worthy of contempt. I disagree. That being said, the answer to your questions depends on the specifics. If a Scout did something that was intended to be hurtful, then I would discipline the said Scout. However, if the Scout was good-natured, and his attempt at humor was likewise, then I have to say the "jokee" has the problem. He should be the one receiving the reprimand. Now, once it is known that a particular boy is sensitive to this kind of thing, then I believe it is reasonable to ask and expect the other members of the troop to respect his feelings (even if his feelings may be unreasonable) and refrain from joking around with him. Again, applying common sense is always key. "Scoutmom and Sctmom, what do you think? Am I being too sensitive, normally we have similar opinions, what is yours?" Okay. I might as well dive head first into this thing. As I have noted on other threads, I have the utmost respect for the women leaders in Boy Scouts. They have filled a much-needed void. And it is worth repeating (as common sense should dictate) - Men are no better or worse than women. Women and men are simply different. This is my precursor disclaimer for my next comment: Men do offer different perspectives than women. I do not find sctmom's comments to be surprising or unusual. OldGreyEagle, surely you have been in situations in your life whereas a woman would not understand or react as you did. Personally, I'm convinced that teaching a boy how to handle himself when dealing with others, in particular other boys (i.e., a bully, a good-natured prankster, etc.), is something a man is more equipped to do, because he is a man. How many girls do you know "who would very likely turn into a little anger machine" if confronted with a practical joke. You may know some, but certainly boys far number girls in this area. I'm familiar with the reaction that sctmom described. However, I find the reaction to be inappropriate. If we punish the initiator of a practical joke, because a boy reacts this way, we are not dealing with the real problem and it justifies the behavior of the "anger machine". Conversely, I think we should teach the offended boy to view reality (he's not the focus of ridicule), to control his temper (it is never appropriate to lash out), and to view himself positively (very often boys pull practical jokes on one another as a way to bond). These problems are common to young boys. As men, we should help them cope with these things in a proper way (not avoid situations).

sst3rd, you said - "I still remember a phrase hammered into me by my company's Diversity Training program. Any possible negative behavior from one party to another is 'victim defined.' If the receiver of said action in ANYWAY feels he/she is a victim, said action is WRONG." With all due respect, this statement is what's wrong with our country today! This is the kind of logic that leads to nonsense like people being reprimanded for handing out Christmas cards or hanging an American flag. I'll never buy this logic. I don't believe it for a moment, not in the workplacenot in Scouts. OGE, you said - "Sorry, Humiliation and debasement, making fun and being the butt of another's joke is not fun and can never be." I understand where you're coming from, but I really believe you're going overboard on this issue. Limits and common sense should be applied. This will protect the vast majority of the boys. It's not a perfect system, but we don't live in a perfect world. Hopefully, the Scoutmaster or troop leadership is monitoring the boys well enough to consult the occasional boy who feels slighted. In fact, this is an opportunity for leadership to teach a life lesson and prepare the boy for "real life". To ban all practical jokes because one or two boys may take offense goes too far. Here's an analogy. Every year, due to fluke injuries, two or three boys die in little league baseball. I grieve for those familiesI truly do. It's a horrible thing. However, because of these rare occurrences, should we ban little league baseball and deny hundreds of thousands of boys the opportunity to play? Everything in life contains some degree of risk, which generates potential gains or losses. You can't protect every boy 100% of the time. If a boy believes that all practical jokes are meant to be hurtful, then it's not the "joker" that has the problem. You're better off building his character and teaching him skills that will prepare him for life (as oppose to hiding from it). Yes, Scouts should be a safe-haven of sorts. But it shouldn't be a fantasy world in which good-natured fun is extracted (i.e., ban practical jokes) because a small minority might not understand.

...within limits of course. At least, that's how I see it.

Having a boy who can be sensitive to this kind of stuff, I understand and agree with OGE. However, I'm not quite as passionate about it. Every comedian will tell you, "You have to know your audience". To me, this includes the "victim" of a practical joke. I have three sons. My youngest may well take offense to this kind of humor. He is very proud and doesn't like anyone to belittle him, even in a joke. The other two would enjoy the joke regardless of which end they were viewing it from. As is true for most things in life, one can go too far. I think the Scoutmaster and SPL should keep an eye on this kind of thing and be sensitive to the fact that not everyone enjoys a "good joke". Still, I don't view every practical joke as a form of hazing. Common sense should prevail...The "joker" should be held accountable when he crosses THE line. The "jokee" should be able to discern the difference between an obvious attempt at good-natured humor and something hurtful. The Scoutmaster and the Troop leadership should be watchful and act appropriately. Yet, I wouldn't label all attempts at humor, which takes advantage of someone's naivety, as hazing. One should be able to laugh at oneself. If a boy is never able to do this, I would be concerned. This can be a sign of low self-esteem. A boy who views himself positively can usually handle a practical joke.

Obviously this thread hit a nerve. I'm just astounded by the number of responses. "To Camo or not to Camo" (44 responses), the closest contender to this thread pales in comparison. "What is Morally Straight?" blew away that discussion, acuminating 86 responses in less than two weeks. Obviously we don't all agree. Yet, I still feel there is a brotherhood in this organization. If I could create the perfect world, we would all agree. Nevertheless, I feel this debate was useful. And for the most part, it was friendly. I like debating online because I can truly say what is on my mind (without watering it down too much). On occasion, I have re-read my remarks and found them to be hostile, which is not what I intended. When this has been the case, I have tried to tone it down and/or apologize in subsequent posts...Yet, it has been great (and fun) being able to say what is on your mind. I'd like to say - If I have given cause to anyone's anger, I do apologize (but stand by my beliefs). As I celebrate the Christmas holidays with my friends and family, I like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests." - Luke 2:14

Amen.

Before you jump on me...I will remain faithful to my vow to remain silent on the issue. However, I would like to offer this in defense of Dedicated Dad's statement that apparently has offended at least one person. Exaggeration is a debating technique. When used properly, it can demonstrate the error of one's logic when carried to an extreme. Obviously no one on this site advocates incest. His example proves that two consenting adults, even if no one else is being harmed, can be immoral.

Just to clarify...I have no problem with this outing. I was making an attempt at humor (see my Username). By the way, PETA is insane. They don't even like people referring to their pets as pets...They prefer companion or something along that order. They harass hunters. They try to get sports teams to change their names (because it demeans the animal)...its long list of craziness.

eisely, Good post. I have a couple of comments (as if you didn't see that coming). Sorry about straying to the homosexual issue, but I felt a previous poster was alluding to that argument and I felt compelled to respond. I don't agree that having a standard of morality that is ambivalent is good. You might as well not have a standard. If this is the direction that BSA goes, then it's going to lose a lot of members (probably my family included). You said - "By inserting morality into the oath, we reserve the right to judge the conduct of ourselves and others under some system of beliefs." I agree. However, how can this happen if we recognize and accept "ambivalence about morality". You seem to be contradicting yourself. Lastly, you said - "Scouting is neutral as to individual religious practices and teaches tolerances among all religions. We will know that full tolerance has been achieved when there are religious awards for Wiccan." I agree with the first half of this statement. Scouting welcomes all of the world's major faiths, as it should. I disagree with the second half of the statement. We should not accept all religions. Not all "religions" attempt to recognize and honor God. Some of these so-called faiths are nothing more than self-serving, self-worshiping, self-gratifying, nonsensical cults - Wicca included (visit some of their websites if you find this hard to swallow). With all due respect, and no offense intended, but to recognize and accept them like any other faith is insulting and absurd. If that makes me a bigot, than I'll wear it proudly and face my God with no shame. I will bow out of this contest of wills (yes, we are all very passionate) with this last statement: We cannot stake claim to being "morally straight" if we use a yardstick that bends in opposite directions in order to accommodate every possible "faith". I'm confident that BSA's founders had specific standards in mind when they chartered the organization some 80 years ago. Back then, it was a given that homosexuality was wrong. In the 1920's, I'm fairly confident that BSA was not willing to open the door to pagan religionsThis too should be accepted as a given, if one knows anything about the culture and standards of that day. They knew, as common sense should dictate, you cannot edict a moral code if there is no established baseline. Considering the times and Baden-Powell's own words (provided by Dedicated Dad), it seems apparent to me that Judeo-Christian values ruled the day. Values that our nation embraced and passionately defended. I do not view these men or their times as anything, but prudent and wise. This leaves the door open to faiths such as the ones mentioned by OldGreyEagle, but closes the door to religions that mock those values. Disclaimer: While I vow to remain silent on this topic from this post forward, do not take my silence as capitulation (believe me, I could drag this out with the best of you) Sincerely, Proud Male Chicken who arbitrary stakes claim to the number seven

I'm not a PETA supporter, but I'm not sure I liked this outing idea?! :-)

sctmom, Since when has the religion of Christianity endorsed slavery and bigamy? Does the bible talk of these things? Yes. Did some of the Old Testament figures have multiple wives? Yes. Did some own slaves? Yes. Nevertheless, the bible does not endorse any of these practices. In regard to animal sacrifices, this was done by Jews as an offering to God and became obsolete with the coming of Christ. However, if it was still done today, I would not put this in the same category of the other practices mentioned - sexual ceremonies, slavery, and bigamy. Having said all of the above, the pagan religions mentioned in this thread, did endorse these kinds of practices. There's a huge difference between "the faith" and the people who attempt to follow it. Christianity does not promote these practices. Some of its followers may not have followed its teachings, but that's a different matter. As to your last post - "If what I am doing in my private life does not affect you, why do you need to judge if it is right or wrong?" I do not believe most people want to go looking into everyone's closet. However, if this question is being posed to suggest that homosexuals should be accepted into BSA on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis, I have a response. As an opponent to this idea, I feel the behavior is immoral. If someone were practicing this behavior, particularly without any regret or shame, I would not trust him/her to mentor my child. The fact that the person in question, never intended for the "secret" to get out, is beside the point. Yes, I am concerned about someone promoting an immoral lifestyle to my child. But more importantly, I consider that person to be immoral and not to be trusted with my child.

ScouterPaul, You said - "Wow! Seems as if Scouting has it's fair share of people unwilling to accept people who are different then themselves. Different in thought, looks, beliefs ect. How narrow of an organization have we become." If that comment was in reference to my post, let me say this- "Being different" does make anyone unacceptable to me. I enjoy and appreciate differences in culture, tastes, etc., even religions. However, this does not mean I should accept all things. What you've labeled as being "narrow", I view as discretion. We should stand for something. If we use your yardstick - "It is up to each individual to determine what their code of morality is and then to stay true to their beliefs." - then we wouldn't stand for anything. Read your definition againdoesn't that sound insane? By this definition of morality, Charlie Manson and Adolph Hitler would qualify. They did stay true to their beliefs, did they not? For the record, I agree with vizoere - "The BSA isn't affiliated with one specific religion, though it is a somewhat religious organization. They, IMHO, have taken the rules common to most major religions & deemed this as the baseline for morality for use in the BSA." This statement rings true to me. It at least establishes that there is a "baseline". It also acknowledges the fact that the BSA founders had something specific in mind, not a nebulous, "open to all" definition. Without one, BSA should abandon its "allegiance to God" requirement. Otherwise, its all a hoax and demeaning to most faiths, at least it would be to mine. You can't have it both ways. If we say there are no boundaries, if we claim there is no baseline for being morally straight, then by definition we are being immoral. We, in effect, would be saying there is no right or wrong.

sctmom and scoutmom, First, sorry about the mix up. In regard to - "Again, not all religions are included in Christianity, Judaism and Muslim. Not all religions believe it is wrong or offensive to God." I believe God (the one and only true God) has made himself known to all. This does not mean that I believe BSA is a Christian organization and/or that no other faiths are welcomed. As to - "There are religions being practiced today in the United States of America that worship goddesses and other gods. These people have very high moral values and live among you as upstanding citizens." There are all sorts of religions being practiced today. Funny, you can create a "faith" from any set of beliefs and worship any god you so chose. Are all of these so-called faiths ligament? Before you answer that, look at the full spectrum of choices and tell me where you draw the line? If you say you don't draw a line, then you've open the door to many strange things indeed. We might as well have no standards at all. Being reverent doesn't mean, find a God that fits your style...It means worshiping God as He is. I'm open minded to other faiths, but not to religions that are created for convince and acceptability. "I have searched my heart and I don't feel it is wrong. (even though you were referring to scoutmom, not me when you wrote this)." I can't comment on what's in your heart...only God can, but I find this statement difficult to believe. I'm disgusted by the thought of two men being sexual active with one another. I can't imagine how anyone can accept this behavior as normal and acceptable.

If you have a budget that will allow your Troop to take a trip to Ireland, then I want join!

OGE, Let me say, you've have stirred the potBut this is not a bad thing. If these issues are not brought forward and discussed, how can we learn and grow? I believe it is a great topic for discussionPerhaps the best one brought forward on the entire site. As to your original set of questions, I'd like to address them: "Does it mean you cannot be a scout leader if you were ever divorced? Does morally straight mean you have to be a virgin until your wedding night and can never contemplate being a scout leader if you weren't? Could you ever have used illegal drugs, snuck a beer while underage, disobeyed your parents?" I believe one can be guilty of all of the above, and be "morally straight". I do not think one can endorse the above set of transgressions and claim to be morally straight. This is not a contradiction. I fail to keep my temper more often that I care to admit. This does not mean having a bad temper is morally acceptable. But it doesn't mean I should try to justify it eitherthe behavior is still wrong. Being morally straight does not mean one must be morally perfect. This misconception is often applied to Christianity as well. We strive to do the right things, but this does not mean we never fail. However, when we do fail, we should not claim our failures to be something other than what they really are - mistakes or transgressions. "What act in the past, not including child endangerment or molestation, would preclude a person from being a scout leader?" I'd probably add murder and rape to that list, but I'm not sure I can answer that specific question. I think each Troop committee should examine candidates on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps, at some point in time, a mistake in judgment will be made. Nevertheless, the committee SHOULD use their judgment hereIn fact; it would be irresponsible if they did not examine each candidate and "pass judgment" on them as to their fitness to be a Boy Scout leader. We may not be perfect ourselves, but we owe it to our children to seek out and find the most competent and "morally straight" leaders we can find. OGE, you said - "I think the term perversion is a judgment applied by an Observer about a situation/action that Observer can't personally comprehend." Sctmom, you said - "I can't define morally straight for YOU any more than you can define it for ME." I know what I'm about to state is not what you meantStill, I need to say it to illustrate a point. These two statements are very weak in logic if applied to common sense. For example, if we use either OGE or Sctmom's standard to judge "morally straight", then one would have to accept murderers and rapists. Using OGE's standard - Since I never committed rape, I am just an "observer" and therefore, can't comprehend the situation/action. That being the case, who am I to judge? Using Sctmom's standard - Since I am not YOU, my standards of being "morally straight" should not be applied to you. You're entitled to have your own standards. Of course, I'm OGE and Sctmom are not endorsing a system that would allow murderers and rapists into BSA leadership. Without any doubt in my mind, I'm sure this is true. Nevertheless, their definitions do not stand up under scrutiny and logic. So, what is morally straight? My reply will probably not satisfy everyone or most, but here's my shot at this: Moral (according to Websters) - of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. I believe God (regardless of faith), has given each of us "moral common sense". Now, I realize that opens the door to more debate, but stillI believe it to be true. That being said, I'm confident that OGE, Sctmom, and every practicing homosexual knows in their heart of hearts, that the behavior is wrong. It is an obvious perversion of naturepurely from a biological standpoint this is plain to see. Even more blatant is its offensiveness to God. I have no problem stating this because I'm convinced in it is true. I'm also convinced that the founders of BSA would have stated it just as clearly if not more so. Finally, I believe Dedicated Dad's question is right on the mark - "From what I know about BSA v. Dale is that it was argued that the author of the Oath didn't have 'Homosexuality' in mind as NOT being Morally Straight, and perhaps the thought never crossed his mind. I would ask anyone here if they would think the author, if asked specifically is "Homosexuality" Morally Straight, would he answer yes or no? Without question, I believe the answer would be NO.

Dedicated Dad, I agree with your assessment regarding the wearing of Class B's and camo. We have very similar views. By the way, I'm from Maryland (Bowie) too. Sounds like you're on the Eastern Shore. Did I guess right?

Trekker, You said: And as a Christian organization should we be surprised when we are persecuted for what we believe? I am a believer and follower of Christ. However, BSA is not a Christian organization. They welcome all religions that show love and respect for God, but they stake no claim to any particular belief. One might claim, "BSA is dominated by Christians", but it cannot be said that BSA is a Christian organization per se.

I for one, believe the answer is NO. FScouter, you make some excellent points about private organizations and the views of non-members being forced on the existing group. Frankly, I believe this is why so many churches no longer stand on the firm ground they once occupied (figuratively speaking). They have allowed too many non-believers to become members. More to the point, if BSA is going to remain the organization we trust and love, than it's current members need to stand strong and fight these attempts by outsiders. Judging by this web site, it appears that the organization will continue to remain in "good hands". I just hope that the posters on this board represent the majority of Scouters in BSA.

I wouldn't know your CM if I tripped over him...But, it appears to me; he's found a way to grab most of the cards and doesn't want anyone else to play. BSA policy is your Ace of Spades. If he doesn't want to play, call his bluff and go get help from your local council. SorryI got carried away with the Poker analogy.

AMEN. Love the sinner...Hate the sin.

Rooster's Dictionary: Homophobic - a fabricated word, created by the pro gay PC crowd, to intimidate and label those who do not approve of homosexual behavior and/or support homosexual causes.

Apparently, George Orwell is alive and well. I am resisting the urge to comment on the San Diego debacle...And will continue to do so. You already know where I stand. Nevertheless, I cannot resist to comment on Mr. Dale Kelly Bankhead's reference to atheists as "religious nonbelievers". The liberal appetite for degrading the English language will never be satisfied. This is yet another tactic of the PC crowd, corrupt the language so it's no longer clear what is being said.

sctmom, You said, "Yet, I still am at a loss as to what I can't teach him and what you can't teach your daughters." I agree with the sentiment that parents should be able to address all topics with their children, regardless of gender. Regardless, I still think there are instances whereas a man can mentor a boy much better than a woman and vice versa. Men offer a different perspective on issues like the treatment of girls, controlling one's temper, controlling one's fear, and the like. This perspective has been cultured by the male physiology and psyche from birth to adulthood. It's a unique perspective. One that only other males can truly understand and appreciate, just like being a woman offers a perspective that is unique and special. Can you teach him the same things? Yes. Will it be just as effective as if a man communicated it? Will your efforts cover all of the same aspects? That depends on the man delivering the message. No doubt, there are many brilliant and strong women. However, if I were given a choice, I'd rather have my son mentored by a brilliant and strong man. This does not make any particular woman less brilliant or strong than any particular man. As you said, we do have differences. These differences should not be underestimated or belittled. They should be noted, addressed, and in many cases, celebrated. Unfortunately, in an ever increasing PC world, this becomes increasingly more difficult.

My troop takes this approach. Each outing requires the attendance of at least two adults. The fee for two adults is added together, divided by the number of adults attending, and subtracted from each adult's fee. So, yes, we make it a little more affordable for the adults to attend as volunteers. Our logic is this: The adults are volunteering their time and energy. We want to encourage their participation by reducing some of the financial concern.

I smoked for 15 years before quitting about 12 years ago. It was quite a struggle, but well worth it. Up until about two or three years ago, on occasion, I would dream that I had smoked a cigarette. I'd wake up thinking I "blew it" until I realized there was no ashtray, no smell of smoke, etc. The dreams were quite real. I once heard about a study in which cocaine addicts said it was harder to quit smoking tobacco than to give up crack. One thing is for sure...Smoking is definitely a powerful addiction. I have many friends and family members that would gladly give up the habit but most don't think they have the strength to do it. Obituaries can be a great source of motivation...it worked for me. I didn't like reading about the deaths of guys only 10, 15, 20 years my senior. Especially since I planned to see my boys grow up, marry, have kids, etc. Now I have a two and a half year-old daughter to worry aboutGlad I quit when I did.